Article Tools

Loud, alert, and self-assured, witness Ben Markowitz fielded attacks on his character during the Jesse James Hollywood trial on Wednesday. In August 2000, the witness’ 15-year old half brother Nicholas Markowitz was allegedly kidnapped by a group of people who Ben dealt drugs with. The victim partied with his captors, giving witnesses the impression that he was free to leave. However, he was murdered three days later in the foothills of Santa Barbara. The prosecution alleges that Hollywood is the mastermind of the crime, even though he was not present for the actual murder. If found guilty, Hollywood faces the death penalty.

Ben Markowitz is a key witness for the prosecution, as he provides a motive for Hollywood to order the kidnapping and murder of Nicholas. In his direct examination Tuesday, Ben Markowitz had told prosecuting attorney Joshua Lynn that he became friends with Hollywood in 1999 after buying marijuana from him. Months later, Markowitz owed Hollywood $1,200 for ecstasy pills that didn’t work. After refusing to pay his debt, the friendship deteriorated. Months later, after leaving each other a series of angry voicemails, Markowitz spotted Hollywood waiting outside his home. Markowitz had never given the defendant his address, and he took his presence as a threat. He responded by purchasing a gun, moving out, and leaving Hollywood another voicemail, in which he claims to have said, “Yeah, you know where I live, but I know where you live too, motherfucker.”

This is the voicemail the defense has been referencing multiple times throughout the trial, using it to claim that Markowitz threatened the whole Hollywood family. Markowitz’s account of the voicemail is not nearly as threatening as the defense previously suggested, because, according to the witness, no specific members of the Hollywood family were mentioned. In his cross-examination on Wednesday, defense attorney James Blatt did not press Markowitz about the voicemail. Instead, he attacked Markowitz’s character. As a result, many of his questions were deemed irrelevant by Judge Brian Hill.

Markowitz, who said he blames himself for the murder, wore a suit to the trial and called himself different person, but was also completely shameless in revealing his criminal record to the jury, not shying away from correcting Blatt on his criminal history and gang trivia. Blatt began his cross-examination by asking the witness about a robbery he committed in December 2000. “Which time? There were two,” Markowitz responded. “If you read [the police report] clearly, there’s two instances.” At one of them, Markowitz, who said he blames himself for his stepbrother’s murder, and a friend robbed a man and a woman of their drugs at gun point. He then had the victims remove their clothes “to embarrass them,” Markowitz said.

Blatt also asked Markowitz about his gang lifestyle, and if he associated with a gang called the Peckerwoods. Markowitz said that he did associate with gangs, but that the Peckerwoods are not a gang. “Can I explain what a Peckerwood is, so you know what it is?” asked the witness.

“You don’t ask the questions,” said Judge Hill.

Blatt even attacked the witnesses’ fighting style, implying that he was a coward. “Breaking windows, isn’t that a little juvenile?” he asked. Blatt was referring to a time when Markowitz said he smashed the windows at Hollywood’s home, before his brother was kidnapped. “That’s your idea of toughness… You didn’t want to confront anybody there?” said Blatt.

“No, that’s not the answer. I didn’t want to go to jail,” Markowitz said.

At one point, Blatt asked Markowitz about his love life. “Did you treat your girlfriend as a gentleman?” The question was immediately deemed irrelevant by Judge Hill, but Blatt continued to press the issue after Markowitz responded, “Yes.”

“You sure about that?” said Blatt.

Blatt began to ask about an incident from earlier in the week, when the witness appeared at his office. Hill and Lynn immediate stepped in to stop the question. Blatt argued that he should be allowed to talk about it, because Markowitz’s presence constituted intimidation.

Blatt’s only success with Markowitz had to do with memory. At this trial, Markowitz said that he never remembered seeing Hollywood’s Tec-9 gun at Ryan Hoyt’s house. Hoyt is currently on death row for shooting Nicholas Markowitz nine times with the weapon. But in a police report from August 14, 2000, Ben Markowitz had said that he did see the gun at Hoyt’s house. The witness said that he was not lying at the trial, but that his memory simply failed him. His memory may be affected by drug use. Markowitz admitted that, during that time, he was taking around 12 to 15 Valium pills per day. Nonetheless, Blatt tried to force the witness to pinpoint the exact month that his feud with Hollywood began. Blatt’s goal was to catch Markowitz lying about the date his father wrote a check to Hollywood. “The dates are very unclear to me, I can’t express that enough. The facts are true,” Markowitz said.

On Friday at 9 a.m., Lynn will continue his direct examination of Casey Sheehan. Hollywood had borrowed Sheehan’s car during the time of the kidnapping.

First off - Why does the age and, more specifically, the race of the jurors matter?

What they do in real life, what politics they subscribe to, what sort of upbringing they may have had - those are the things that will influence their decisions - NOT what color they are. Of course, you probably don't have this information...

and SweetLips? You perpetuate the ignorance... you've somehow surmised that they "seem like solid citizens to decide this case." ??? From Age and Race?

Now, I'm sure the jurors are a good bunch but... please spare us the racist conjectures, ok?

Sweetlips simply asked for the composition of the jury. They did not ask for race. That information was simply offered up by Chris. Sweetlips just commented that the jury sounded solid. Why the hostility? Someone pee in your cereal? Play nice. Thank you.

Andrea has it correctly and Cartoonz seems on some other wave length. Happy to let that go.

My only issue is to Cartoonz' seeming objection to my user name "SweetLips" which happens to be my dear dog's name which I often use for public messages. Given her loving spirit, she'd never pre-suppose anyone's views. Try it.

"The jury is made up of nine women and three men. The men appear to be: one in his 30s, one his 40s, one in his 50s. All white.

One woman is in her 20s and six of the nine women appear to be 50 years old and older. One appears to be Hispanic, while one more is black."

Nothing more than sex, age, and race. Not one thing.

With just that information, it is absolutely impossible to determine what "type" of people they are at all - unless you use some sort of stereotype or maybe a crystal ball.

Seriously, think about it. I could show you a group of people with all those exact characteristics ... outside a bar, in a restaurant, at the beach, in a Congressional hearing, in Columbia, France, or even outside the County Jail.

Would you make the same conclusions in all those scenarios too?

I never expressed any objection to anybody's user name... just to the supposed mind reading purported by that user. And it was wrong... both times, apparently.

Sure, I hope that they are all "solid" people. My only point is that it is completely ignorant to make such authoritative statements with absolutely no supporting evidence.